What is the function of a science historian?

Why do we require historians in the presence of journalists and scientists? While journalists excel at uncovering stories and recent events, their role typically does not include interpreting scientific findings. Scientists, on the other hand, offer explanations rooted in their personal insights and interests, which can be somewhat biased.

Robots are incapable of fully conducting scientific work. They can analyze data, but they lack the ability to engage in scientific inquiry.

I can articulate my purpose, but interpretations may vary widely. I strive to make science comprehensible to the public, yet some might argue that I am undermining its esteemed status. Historians, particularly those like myself who aim to connect with broader audiences, seek to contextualize science within societal and political frameworks, an approach not typically taken by journalists or scientists.

What aspects of science history are often overlooked?

The human elements of science frequently remain unexamined in historical accounts.

I aim to portray scientists' behaviors—akin to studying animal behaviors, which I have done—while highlighting the personal dynamics, friendships, rivalries, and the various influences that shape their investigations.

Although scientists attempt to separate their personal lives from laboratory work, many conduct research in natural environments. Even in lab settings, personal experiences, relationships, and daily moods inevitably influence their inquiries.

Every researcher brings their humanity to their work, whether in framing research questions or interpreting data. There is a misconception that data has a singular correct interpretation; however, larger questions like the origins of life require a personal lens. Science demands human engagement—robots are not capable of this.

Is the Nobel Prize beneficial for science?

I recently returned from Stockholm, where I gained insights from a friend at the Karolinska Institute who manages their medical library. My time in the Nobel archives and discussions with committee members provided a unique perspective. Within the institute, the term "Nobelitis" is used to describe the overwhelming prestige of the prize, a legacy that Alfred Nobel intended to establish.

While the Nobel Prize can spotlight scientific achievements and serve as motivation, it also politicizes science. Individuals lobby for nominations, campaign, and engage in various forms of influence.

There are remarkable stories of individuals attempting to secure nominations, including those who forged documents or sent in trophies inscribed with false accolades. Such actions highlight the disproportionate importance placed on the prize, leading some to extreme lengths that may not be beneficial for the field.

Is the significance of the Nobel Prize waning?

I believe the prestige of the Nobel Prize is naturally diminishing for several reasons. Science has become increasingly collaborative, with major discoveries often involving numerous contributors. The landscape has shifted from the era of individual titans of science to a more collective approach.

Although the award remains significant, its impact is diluted by the collaborative nature of modern science and the proliferation of other prestigious awards.

How has the role of women in science evolved?

Over the course of the 20th and early 21st centuries, the position and reputation of women in science have transformed significantly. Instances of overt sexism, such as male scientists questioning a woman's presence in the lab, have become rare and are swiftly addressed when they occur.

The feminist movements of the 70s and 80s initiated this change, resulting in an academic environment where young women in science gravitate towards laboratories with female leadership and representation.

However, challenges remain, particularly regarding racial disparities. While progress has been made in gender equality, attracting minorities into the scientific community remains a hurdle. The perception of science as predominantly a white or Asian domain necessitates focused efforts to enhance diversity.

Have women scientists made more advancements in biology than in physics?

Physics is indeed a more traditionally masculine field. My expertise lies primarily in biology and medicine, where I've observed significant progress in attracting women. However, similar efforts must now be directed towards increasing minority representation within the sciences.

I view this as a golden age for science writing, with some of the best and worst practitioners present today. Science is inherently a social endeavor, with each discipline cultivating its own unique culture.

What do you think of the recent secret meeting in Cambridge co-organized by George Church?

I perceive it as largely a publicity stunt—there was no clear need for secrecy, and the meeting didn't yield any groundbreaking decisions. Based on the discussions and Church's own remarks, it seems more like a promotional event than a significant scientific gathering.

What are your thoughts on the rise of billion-dollar CRISPR companies like Editas?

There's a saying in biotech: "buy on the rumor, sell on the product." While biotech has immense potential for both positive and negative impacts, both are often exaggerated. I strive to highlight the realistic potential while calling out the hype.

The discussions surrounding CRISPR often veer into sensationalism, predicting outcomes like "designer babies," which are unlikely to materialize. The true CRISPR revolution is a gradual one, transforming daily scientific practices and leading to incremental advancements in our understanding—rather than a sudden, dramatic shift.

What grade would you assign to the science media overall?

Overall, I would give the science media a C-minus. While there are many exceptional science writers I engage with, I often critique subpar reporting. Despite the existence of some outstanding talent, the media landscape is also populated by less reliable sources.

How did you come to be a science historian?

I began college as a music major but quickly recognized that my mindset differed from those of my peers in music theory. Seeking guidance, I was advised to consider English or philosophy. After taking a semester off, I stumbled upon my passion for marine mammals during a phone call unrelated to the subject.

I interned at Marine World, engaging in dolphin research, which led me to pursue a degree in marine biology. Following that, I studied neurobiology and animal behavior at Cornell, focusing on electric fish. However, I realized my true calling was writing about science, and through my academic journey, I discovered the subjects I wanted to explore through my writing.